Are there no rules against deliberately misleading people about the way voting works? There should be. As you say, they could easily make their point without being misleading.

Maybe.

The Electoral Referendum Act 2010 states that the Electoral Act 1993 applies, with any necessary modifications, to the referendum.

Section 199A of the Electoral Act states:

199A Publishing false statements to influence voters

Every person is guilty of a corrupt practice who, with the intention of influencing the vote of any elector, at any time on polling day before the close of the poll, or at any time on any of the 2 days immediately preceding polling day, publishes, distributes, broadcasts, or exhibits, or causes to be published, distributed, broadcast, or exhibited, in or in view of any public place a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.

As you will note, this doesn't apply yet (only in the last 48 hours and on polling day. And I'm not sure the ad is explicit enough in it misleadingness to count as "a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular".

I retired as a copywriter many many years ago when I learned that...I am not interested in another's guilt because I cannot change it, I am however interested in mine, because I can.The whole MMP thing is a sideshow, we got it arguably by stealth in my view and because of the nutters that are pushing to change it why don't we simply leave it to bed in, because in my view it's just starting to work, against them (the nabobs) and for us, the plebs.Update, not when they game the system like this though,Act is not standing in several marginal electorates - including West Coast Tasman, Waimakariri and New Plymouth - under a quiet deal with National.

Mr Key has said National was campaigning for the party vote only in Epsom - which is Act's lifeline to Parliament as it struggles in the polls.

So, 2 days before the election National must take down its hoardings promising a "A Brighter Future"?. The luminance of the Sun will be influenced by National, a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.

1. Electorates will have to be too large, or2. There will not be enough list MPs to ensure proportionality.

That said, I dispute that FPP can work with 99 MPs (or 120 for that matter). A major advantage claimed for FPP over MMP is that it means that local MPs are responsive to local voters, instead of to party dictates. In New Zealand, this hasn't been the case for a long time. With only a couple of one-off type exceptions, MPs have not really crossed the floor against their party in a very long time in New Zealand. If one supports FPP because it means local MPs will vote with their constituents and against their parties, you need a lot more MPs (so that cabinet and the executive have much less power over Parliamentary Parties).

MPs have not really crossed the floor against their party in a very long time in New Zealand.

This is something I would like to see more of, you know, a proper Parliament instead of a blatant abuse of power.

At the end of every debate that is not supported by the opposition, regardless of being Labour or National, a vote is called for. This is now merely a formality.The party Whip's are not even necessary it appears, nobody seems to be bothered by the lack of members in the house, in fact a one man party can still get to have his vote counted without ever having heard the arguments or even attending the debate, the fact that urgency can be used at all under these circumstances dumbfounds me.Then there's this

Official party whips are almost exclusively found in legislatures based on first-past-the-post electoral systems, as FPTP discourages the formation of small parties and therefore tends to create a few larger "big church" parties where the distance between members on the parties' right and left wings may be significant, which in turn can easily lead to internal rebellion against the official party platform when certain issues are voted on. In legislatures based on proportional representation elections such party officials are rarely found

Do we need to change the rules of the House? and if so, how do we do that when we have no power against a house that is beholden to powerful interests and MPs fear losing their list position?.

I'd recommend voting to keep MMP and make STV your backup choice. It's the only alternative on offer that is remotely proportional....despite the talk of only 3 to be elected for district....which would NOT be proportional. It's still better than one (a.k.a. "PV", which is really just a single-member version of STV)